MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?

Adding genetic diversity is not evolution, there has to be selection to get evolution, meaning changes in a whole population. And when that is happening, when you have a new set of gene frequencies in an isolated population THEN you are getting a new characteristic or set of characteristics for that new population which can eventually become a new species over a number of generations, and that requires the loss of genetic diversity.You can theoretically have lots of new mutations scattered through a population that is not forming a new variety or species.As a matter of fact, however, you are exaggerating the occurrence of beneficial mutations since the vast majority are not beneficial and don't occur in the sex cells anyway where they could be passed on. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

In general discussions of mutations it is usually made clear that beneficial mutations that occur in the sex cells where they could be passed on are extremely rare, and to expect them to occur with the rapidity you are now describing contradicts that general knowledge. I conclude that the thirty-some-odd years the lizards had to evolve their new form would not have been enough time for the explanation to be mutation, let alone the series of mutations you are claiming.So I argue that all it takes is the mixing of the gene frequencies in the original founders by sexual recombination over whatever number of generations it takes to homogenize the gene pool in the whole population. This assumes some kind of principle of increasing effect from generation to generation in some traits, and since Darwin's pigeons developed exaggerated breast size over some generations of selection without there being time for just the right mutations to occur in each generation, I think size is one of those traits that can be increased by repetition from generation to generation, especially if a number of genes are involved in the trait. Something that could be studied in a genetics lab but seems reasonable from simple observation.

The reality is that distinct varieties and species exist, and for them to exist requires the loss of genetic material for other varieties and species, so wherever such varieties and species are being evolved you are going to have that loss and you can't avoid it. You would never ever see a distinct variety or species if your scienario were true.l

But the implication of the genetic loss by selection is overlooked, as if you could cull indefinitely and not deplete genetic diversity.

About "ring species," they illustrate how a small number of individuals migrating to a new location is all it takes to develop a new population with new characteristics from a new set of gene frequencies. There doesn't have to be loss of interbreeding to make this simple point, so there doesn't have to be speciation. It's messy if you take into account hybrid zones and resumed gene flow here and there but the overall picture ought to still be pretty much intact.It should also demonstrate reduction of genetic diversity from population to population, at least certainly by the last population in the ring. The point is that these populations illustrate evolution, phenotypic change from population to population, and they should demonstrate enough loss of genetic diversity o make my point that you have to run out of the fuel for evolution itself eventually.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Whatever it was that Dawkins came up with some years ago that illustrated how cute little stick creatures move and change continuously from one form to another.

First, they don't keep arriving, even according to establishment descriptions of how mutations occur; beneficial mutations are extremely rare.Second, if they did keep arriving they would defeat the purpose of the selection, and you could never get an identifiable variety or species.

I think it's a false analogy. Loss of genetic diversity doesn't slow down evolution at all, it is necessary to evolution. The point is that eventually, with enough continuing selection (reduction of genetic diversity) in a particular evolving line you arrive at the condition of inability to continue evolving, a condition where you have fixed loci for the salient traits of the new species.A better analogy is running out of fuel, but that one's not all that great either.ABE: Realizing this fuel analogy does have the virtue of showing why adding mutations doesn't stop the process of running out of genetic diversity. All you are doing is replenishing the fuel supply; until it is used the car isn't running, you aren't getting evolution in any meaningful sense, meaning phenotypic changes from population to population.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm coming to like my fuel analogy just above. The point is that adding mutations is like adding fuel to an engine. Unless the fuel is used up the engine isn't running, you aren't getting evolution. The analogy is far from perfect since the actual situation is dynamic and not a matter of guzzling fuel, but it's better than most.

Extremely rare means too rare to have any kind of effect on the formation of new species or varieties, which is typically a lot more rapid than assumed under the ToE. Jutland cattle. Pod Mrcaru lizards.I'm using selection to refer to the isolation of a portion of a populatlon with its limited collection of genes/alleles, creating a new set of gene frequencies from that in the original population, a new gene pool from which new phenotypes are expressed, so that the high frequency genes in particular come to be characteristic of the new population. Classical natural selection has the same effect of reducing genetic diversity in the bringing out of new characteristics of a new population, but I think it's a lot rarer than the random selection I'm talking about.

That's one of the ways the analogy breaks down because you are not getting beneficial mutations that frequently, and even if you were you'd just have that situation I keep talking about, where you are getting a scattering of new phenotypes within a population, which isn't evolution because evolution makes new populations and that requires selection of some kind (using up the fuel).Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The fact that evolutionary processes must inevitably run out of fuel proves that evolution from species to species cannot happen and has never happened and the whole ToE scenario is shown to be false.

Again, you'd never ever get an identifiable species or variety or breed or race if beneficial mutations kept occurring in the sex cells at the rate necessary to stop the loss of genetic diversity that is NECESSARY to the formation of species or varieties or breeds or races.

For the evolution of a new variety or race or breed or species to occur you HAVE to lose genetic diversity, the genetic substrates of the new phenotypes have to displace those of whatever is being replaced. You can only get a population of salamanders with distinctive markings by isolating them from their founding from the other populations of salamanders, and that causes the loss of the genetic material for the markings of the former population. That's how domestic breeding has often occurred too, by simply isolating the animals with the desired traits from the others until the genes for the new traits become homozygous. The original breeds of cattle must have developed from the isolating of small numbers from the wild herd to form domesticated herds, which over time developed the distinctive characteristics brought about by the new gene frequencies brought about by their isolation from other characteristics in the original herd. Dozens, even hundreds, of different breeds of cattle could be formed by this simple process, each new herd developing its own set of traits while LOSING all the genetic stuff for all the other traits. You get a Greyhound by losing all the genetic stuff for the traits of huskies and Chihuahuas and so on and so forth. If those alleles remained in the population you would not have the breed at all.There is no combining the addition of traits with the reduction of traits. That makes no sense.As I understand it, a neutral mutation is simply a mutation that does not change the protein produced at that locus, therefore doesn't change the phenotype. And a changed phenotype would have to spread through the population to have a part in forming a new species or breed etc. That spreading would be the result of some form of selection, something that favors that phenotype, and if it spreads then it will contribute new characteristics to the new population.As I keep pointing out, if you keep getting [beneficial selected germ cell] mutations eventually you lose your species or breed. But species persist pretty reliably in nature. Some breeds have to be artificially preserved by enforced reproductive isolation but it is that isolation that keeps such identifiable populations identifiable and intact, protecting them from the gene flow that would destroy their recognizability. Gene flow, addition, destroys an established breed or species. Not tnat nature cares, of course, but it doesn't seem to happen the way all this adding-subtracting theorizing says it should.Addition could only be basic fuel, after that it is an interference with the formation of a species, breed etc.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

yes, cars can always replenish their fuel and keep going, that's why tht is not a good analogy for evolution.